ADS Tech has updated their website with new pictures and information for the Mini Drive Kit. We ran a story about the Mini Drive Kit when it was announced back in May. The suggested retail price for the ADS Mini Drive kit is $69.00.

"Data-intensive files such as digital video and multi-media projects require a tremendous amount of storage. The Mini Drive Kit is the perfect external storage solution that features USB 2.0 connectivity.

The Mini Drive Kit features an external drive enclosure that enables users to convert an IDE Ultra DMA 33/66 or ATA-100/133 hard disk drive into a USB 2.0 drive simply by plugging into the ADS Native Bridge Board inside the enclosure. At 480Mbits/sec, you will get the maximum data throughput for your external drive. Now featuring an innovative SimpleTouch Back Up button that allows easy backup of any number of folders or files. Program the backup process with Software included inside from Intech." - ADS Tech.

It's an aluminum case. They say the fan is silent. With the aluminum case the fan may not kick in as often. It's reasonably priced. You can buy a hub for the extra $30 if you need it. It may not be as fast as firewire, but some people won't care.

One thing that strikes me as being strange, is the lettering on the top is upside down. Maybe it's done that way just for the photo shoot.

USB is not as reliable as Firewire on a Mac. I've had all kinds of problems with USB: I only use a USB pocket drive because I couldn't find a FW one when I needed it because my previous experience with USB-IDE on the Mac was so bad, and I've had lockups, I've had the drive not show up at all or sit there resetting continually, both on my mini and the Xserve at work. I can't imagine why someone would build a USB drive aimed at the Mac market. Maybe this is really intended for that AOpen PC-mini box?

I understand that the Intel-based Macs will boot off USB but not Firewire, because they will be using an Intel BIOS. *sigh*

Where'd you hear they will be making an Intel BIOS? I don't even think Intel makes its own BIOS. Most companies buy their BIOS or are part of a group that collaborate on one. I could be wrong though.

Frankly, considering how closely Apple has been tied to FireWire (considering they practically, if not actually, invented it). I'm sure what whatever BIOS they end up using (they may actually develop it themselves with help from other companies) I'm pretty much positive that it would support booting from FireWire as well as USB._________________Computer Engineer
Junior, Brown University
15" NC8430 HP Laptop
1.42Ghz PPC Mac Mini, 1Gb RAM, 1st Gen
40GB G4 iPod
2GB Black iPod Nano

They'll be using a regular Wintel-style BIOS. I don't actually know who's going to be producing it, but it's not going to be OpenFirmware.

Just because it's not OpenFirmware doesn't mean that it'll lose any critical features. The only reason OpenFirmware is so awesome is because it wasn't designed and left unchanged since the 1970's. Other than that, BIOS and OpenFirmware are the same thing.

Just because it's not OpenFirmware doesn't mean that it'll lose any critical features. The only reason OpenFirmware is so awesome is because it wasn't designed and left unchanged since the 1970's.

Um, actually, OpenFirmware is MUCH more like a traditional boot monitor, like you'd find on a Digital minicomputer in the '70s, than the IBM-PC style BIOS which is definitely an '80s abberation.

And they're definitely NOT the same thing. OpenFirmware is fundamentally different from a BIOS... it's more like what the next generation BIOS (AKA, the traditional formally structured and modular boot monitor) that they keep babbling about over in ArsTechnica than the random hacks that are a PC BIOS.

I stand corrected. OpenFirmware is like the next generation of BIOS, which is what I was alluding to. I guess I didn't make that clear enough in my post. I wouldn't be suprised if Apple creates its own boot monitor that is similar to OpenFirmware in that it's based on this next-gen BIOS._________________Computer Engineer
Junior, Brown University
15" NC8430 HP Laptop
1.42Ghz PPC Mac Mini, 1Gb RAM, 1st Gen
40GB G4 iPod
2GB Black iPod Nano

Why would you get driver collisions in the BIOS? And why would those errors be HTML related even if the BIOS uses an HTML frontend? Drivers are an OS thing. I don't see why it being HTML would matter, right now it's plain text, who cares? If the HTML is coded correctly, shouldn't be a problem.

And why would those errors be HTML related even if the BIOS uses an HTML frontend?

Murphy's Law, da Silva's corollary: every way things can go wrong is another way things will go wrong. Every time you add a new dependency, you add a new set of headaches. If you have modules in the BIOS, the modules will conflict. If you're using HTML and an internal web browser to configure the BIOS, you will have HTML-related problems. This month is my 45th birthday, and I started hacking on computers when I was 12, in 1972, and in those 33 years I've never seen an extra layer of complexity that didn't create a whole new kind of pain for me as a user, programmer, or supporting users or programmers.

The question is whether the pain from this new feature of an HTML frontend is worth the increase in features. The thing is, most of the se new changes besides the HTML part are just more of a standardization of what we already have.

If you look at the different BIOSes they all have different feature sets. Basically the difference in features is due to some lacking "modules" that others have. It might make the coding a little more complicated, especially the debugging, but in the end it should allow for motherboard manufacturers to put exactly the features they want in the BIOS without as much work because now everything's modular versus hacked together._________________Computer Engineer
Junior, Brown University
15" NC8430 HP Laptop
1.42Ghz PPC Mac Mini, 1Gb RAM, 1st Gen
40GB G4 iPod
2GB Black iPod Nano